Thanks for this and all your wide-ranging prolific work and publishing, Steve. You engage us who are interested in learning the full bhoona in your books. And to bridge to those we know who aren't interested or even actively disinterested in anyone else's views - some proudly rubbish reading books even! - you provide clear bite sized chunks that cheerfully manage to sidestep ideological, ad hominem and fake-science dissent. In that spirit I enjoyed posting your own learning about cuteness. And I'll use (a couple of quotes) from this one to gently counter my "friends" who seem to know-it-all much better and instantly.
Speaking of quotable authors, I recently discovered (via a Philosophy Bites done 20 years ago) the great philosopher writer Janet Radcliffe-Richards. Famous for The Sceptical Feminist in the 1990s, she turned a students' handbook into a textbook: Human Nature after Darwin. It's not readily available, but it bloody well ought to be! I bet you've read it yourself as it's right up your street. This one incidentally covers the same ground as you have with evolutionary psychology, but primarily teaches readers what her philosophy students learned to do: applying logical reason aka critical thinking as a method to work tricky puzzles out for one's self. So it doesn't matter if it's not completely up to date with your field. A cursory skim may not come up with your 19th quote, but it condenses her expanded but easily followed reasoning:
“The Dawkins passage (pp 102ff) … contained three alleged implications of the gene-machine thesis … the young woman’s fear about her preordained future, and Gould’s claim that genetic characteristics are ineluctable [impossible to avoid]. In both cases I [JRR] have argued that the implications of the gene-machine thesis are nothing like as strong as is often implied, and that the rival blank-paper view is, in itself, no better. … The third claim is about responsibility and blame … that if evolution has bred into us dispositions to act in certain ways, then we cannot be blamed for acting in those ways … [eg] that women should not blame their philandering mates.” [Janet Radcliffe-Richards, Human Nature after Darwin, Chap 6 "Blameless Puppets", p 126] ... JRR sets out to "conclude, again [for this third implication], that when the details are looked at with enough care, there is no difference of implication between the different positions."
I’m a huge fan of Janet Radcliffe Richards. I thought Human Nature After Darwin was exceptional - and then, when I finally got round to reading The Sceptical Feminist, I thought that that was even better. One of the best books I’ve ever read!
Thanks for this and all your wide-ranging prolific work and publishing, Steve. You engage us who are interested in learning the full bhoona in your books. And to bridge to those we know who aren't interested or even actively disinterested in anyone else's views - some proudly rubbish reading books even! - you provide clear bite sized chunks that cheerfully manage to sidestep ideological, ad hominem and fake-science dissent. In that spirit I enjoyed posting your own learning about cuteness. And I'll use (a couple of quotes) from this one to gently counter my "friends" who seem to know-it-all much better and instantly.
Speaking of quotable authors, I recently discovered (via a Philosophy Bites done 20 years ago) the great philosopher writer Janet Radcliffe-Richards. Famous for The Sceptical Feminist in the 1990s, she turned a students' handbook into a textbook: Human Nature after Darwin. It's not readily available, but it bloody well ought to be! I bet you've read it yourself as it's right up your street. This one incidentally covers the same ground as you have with evolutionary psychology, but primarily teaches readers what her philosophy students learned to do: applying logical reason aka critical thinking as a method to work tricky puzzles out for one's self. So it doesn't matter if it's not completely up to date with your field. A cursory skim may not come up with your 19th quote, but it condenses her expanded but easily followed reasoning:
“The Dawkins passage (pp 102ff) … contained three alleged implications of the gene-machine thesis … the young woman’s fear about her preordained future, and Gould’s claim that genetic characteristics are ineluctable [impossible to avoid]. In both cases I [JRR] have argued that the implications of the gene-machine thesis are nothing like as strong as is often implied, and that the rival blank-paper view is, in itself, no better. … The third claim is about responsibility and blame … that if evolution has bred into us dispositions to act in certain ways, then we cannot be blamed for acting in those ways … [eg] that women should not blame their philandering mates.” [Janet Radcliffe-Richards, Human Nature after Darwin, Chap 6 "Blameless Puppets", p 126] ... JRR sets out to "conclude, again [for this third implication], that when the details are looked at with enough care, there is no difference of implication between the different positions."
I love reasoned thinking!!
Thanks Nick, much appreciated!
I’m a huge fan of Janet Radcliffe Richards. I thought Human Nature After Darwin was exceptional - and then, when I finally got round to reading The Sceptical Feminist, I thought that that was even better. One of the best books I’ve ever read!